This year the “Computers Freedom and Privacy” (CFP) conference is taking place in San Jose from June 15-18. This year is the 20th anniversary of the conference which helped shape my thinking about Internet Privacy and introduced me to many of the key players in this space.

Around the same time in 1992 an email mailing list started called “Cypherpunks”. Members were devoted discussions of Internet freedom and to creating and distributing privacy and security tools. Best known of these are the various flavors of Anonymous Remailers following the original anon.penen.fi.

This seems like a good time to stop and take stock of what has been achieved, lost, and abandoned in the evolution of privacy and anonymity on the Internet. I have organized a panel at CFP of some of the key Cypherpunks from the early days to talk about those early days, and share their vision and insight about where we are and where we should / are likely to end up.

I hope I will see many of you there.

Read this post from IntelFusion. It makes a very strong case for why I worry about any privacy system run by operators you can’t really trust, investigate, and verify. In this case it is an investigation of Glype servers. They can be configured to do significant logging, and the author has been able to remotely retrieve the logs from many of the Glype servers. The results show many users from within sensitive US Government organizations and would provide the ability for an attacker to gather all kinds of useful intelligence to find soft targets to exploit.

On the personal privacy side, it is an easy way for attackers to intercept usernames, passwords, travel plans, personal information and more for use in, identity theft, burglary, and hacking among other things.

Pseudonyms: The Natural State of Online Identity | Privacy Digest

This article does a nice job of making a point I have been talking around for some time. The Internet naturally supports pseudonymity, and that is really what we want most of the time. When I talk to someone on-line, I am most interested that I am still talking today with the person I started talking to last month. Whether the name actually corresponds to their birth certificate is not important (and I would not have any idea in a real world encounter either).

Having just finished initial testing with the actual iPad device, I am pleased to announce that Anonymizer Universal (AU) provides the same level of support on the iPad that we have been providing for the iPhone and iPod Touch!

Considering how these devices are going to be used, the combination of privacy along with the security when using insecure WiFi is really critical.

I am really excited to announce our new product “Anonymizer Universal” (AU), available starting today. AU represents a totally new architecture for our services.

Not only is it more powerful, faster, and much more capable, but it now also supports Mac and iPhone platforms! With one subscription you can use it across any of the supported devices.

Our new solution is VPN based, and bypasses any specific software support issues. AU works with any browser. Any program that connects to the Internet will automatically take advantage of AU. All connections between your computer and Anonymizer are cryptographically protected.

AU continues to leverage our massively scaleable backend infrastructure that provides the anonymity and daily rotating IP addresses.

AU will replace both our “Anonymous Surfing” and “Total Net Shield products”. “Nyms” is becoming all web based and will soon be upgraded with new interface options and better integration.

Expect to see more new capabilities and expanded solutions going forward as the renewed and expanded resources we are devoting to these products bear fruit.

Official Google Blog: A new approach to China

Google is officially stating that a number of email accounts hosted by Google were attacked from within China. The accounts seem to be mostly connected to Chinese human rights activists. They also state that this is part of a larger pattern extending over a number of other companies.

The most amazing thing about this is the very aggressive pro-privacy stance Google is taking in response to this. They are saying that they will stop censoring search results at Google.cn. That they will talk with the Chinese about how to do this, but are willing to completely pull out of operations in China if they can’t provide un-censored content from within.

The post is worth reading in full. Here are the concluding paragraphs:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Wow. We shall see.

NIST-certified USB Flash drives with hardware encryption cracked - The H Security: News and Features

Security firm SySS announced (in German) that it has discovered a massive vulnerability in the hardware encryption for USB thumb drives by Kingston, SanDisk and Verbatim. From the article at The H Security it looks like the problem is that all drives share a single symmetric encryption key at the hardware level. The password interface seems to simply do some gymnastics to get access to that key. It does not really matter what it does because SySS was able to intercept the actual hardware key being sent in the clear to the device.

They then simply wrote a little program to just send that key without bothering with the password or anything else. Because all drives by the same maker use the same key, this program can instantly open any encrypted USB drive by that maker.

From the sound of it, this is a very easy attack for someone to duplicate. If you have one of these drives, I would suggest that you treat them as if they were normal un-encrypted thumb drives.

Kudos to Kingston for quickly providing details of which of their drives are affected, and recalling them. SanDisk and Verbatim have issues software fixes. If I understand the attack correctly, I am not sure how a software patch will solve it, so watch this space.

You Have Zero Privacy Anyway — Get Over It

This is a good article by David Adams on OSnews talking about a recent quote by Google CEO Eric Schmidt saying “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” David compares this to a similar and infamous quote by Sun’s Scott McNealy.

I think the reality is not that privacy is dead, or unimportant, but that it is hard. Maintaining privacy requires thought and vigilance, now more than ever. Much as I love it, the Internet is the most surveillance enabled and friendly technology ever created.

A long time customer recently sent in the following question. Since it should be of broad interest, I asked his permission to anonymous post and answer it here.

How do you know that subscribing to an anonymizer does not simply mark you for observation?

We all know the NSA is capable of intercepting any electronic communication, and with gajillions of electronic communications happening every second, how would the NSA (or the FBI or the CIA or whoever it is who watches us) know which of those communications to watch?

Seems like the people wanting anonymity would be the first on the list.

Surely they COULD, couldn’t they? That is, get the subscriber lists, which would enable them to intercept communications this side of the proxy - i.e., intercept on the way out, on the way TO the proxy, BEFORE it gets securely tunneled? And no, that would not be possible with the web, but it would with email. Supposedly.

This is what has been proposed to me. What do you think? Does it have any validity?

It is certainly the case that the government could, in principle, monitor your access to privacy services. As long as that access is over a strongly encrypted connection, the contents of your communication, what sites you are visiting or who you are communicating with would be protected. The strength of your anonymity is then largely determined by the number of other users of the same service with which your traffic is being mixed.

In the United States, the use of privacy tools is not restricted. Strict separation of intelligence from law enforcement functions should prevent drift net monitoring of your use of Anonymizer from leading to any kind of legal investigation. The huge number of Anonymizer subscribers would also make this difficult and highly visible.

Outside of the US it is another story. Many countries exercise much greater control over the Internet. Even if it were not blocked by the Iranian government, accessing the Anonymizer website from within Iran would be a risky activity. Once again, the key here is safety in numbers. We have run anti-censorship tools in Iran that supported over 100,000 users. With those numbers, it is awkward for the government to go after people simply for using the service. This is not to say that if you are already under observation for some other reason that it would not give them added ammunition. Privacy tools are generally very effective at keeping you below the radar, but can be much less effective once you are on the radar for whatever reason.

The reality is that there is no evidence of widespread Internet surveillance being used in the US to track users of privacy services. As long as the connection to the service is well encrypted, you should be fine.

50 Best Blogs for Privacy Nuts by e-Justice Blog

I am really pleased to see “The Privacy Blog” listed #1 on this list of  ”50 Best Blogs for Privacy Nuts”.

The other blogs on the list are worth checking out.